Although for a long time it has been postulated that magnetic fields have potential effects on biological systems, there has been no clear evidence to date indicating the critical parameters influencing the effects. As a result, replication of observed effects has been limited at best. Lacking clear indication of the possible causes and forms of magnetic field influence, a linearly increasing effect with increasing AC field strength was assumed. However, Liboff gives no guidance beyond a maximum at B.sub.ac =B.sub.dc after which one must experiment unduly to obtain precise values of B.sub.ac and B.sub.dc that will be useful in treating a particular system. However, the present inventors have discovered that under the specific conditions identified herein, neither this assumption nor Liboff's postulated maximum effect when B.sub.ac =B.sub.dc is correct.
The work by Liboff et al. (1987) describing the transport of calcium/magnesium ions across a membrane of cells and bones considers specifically the physical motion of those ions as a result of the application of magnetic fields whose effect is to transform the random motion of those ions to a path matching the geometric form of the spiral channel postulated to provide passage across the membrane. The frequency for these ions is only the same at the fundamental. However, Liboff does not predict the hydrogen trigger at calcium tuning.
Although the "characteristic resonance frequency" of the IPR model is identical in mathematical form to that of the ICR model resonance, it will be seen that resonance as defined for the IPR model of this application is the mathematical inverse of that defined for the ICR model. Further, the mechanism of interaction postulated for the IPR model is distinct from that of the ICR model by virtue of abandoning a geometric concept and focussing on the ion's role within a molecular structure, such as an enzyme, protein, nucleic acid, and that the IPR model's consideration of candidate ions is, therefore, broader than is that of the ICR model. Since ##EQU1## at constant B.sub.dc, a higher n requires a lower frequency.
Sandyk (1993) examined the application of magnetic fields to influence the pineal gland in patients with Parkinson's disease to moderate the melatonin caused hyperglycemia. However, the AC field flux densities applied were substantially below those postulated to be effective by the IPR model, assuming an approximate geomagnetic source of the ambient DC magnetic field. Further, three different orientations for the applied AC fields, with respect to a presumably fixed DC field, were required to produce an effect, obviating any requirement for parallel fields.
The work of Liburdy et al. (1993) also demonstrated the use of AC magnetic fields to control the influence of melatonin without a clear indication of the AC magnetic field orientation with respect to that of the ambient DC magnetic field. Lerchl et al. (1991) specifically considered the influence of parallel fields on pineal gland function, showing that a single selected combination of fields reduced the synthesis and production of melatonin. This single data point is between the maximal effect and null effect predictions by the IPR model, assuming Ca.sup.++ resonance. Lerchl further considers the distinction between parallel and perpendicular fields, postulating them to follow a cosine law form, although this was not substantiated by any data. Although these works, taken together, appear to suggest a likely effect on either melatonin production, or its action in vivo, or both, they each give results for single combinations of applied magnetic fields without any further guidance for how these effects might change with variations in AC flux density, frequency, or DC flux density. As will be shown below, no person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of these publications would have been motivated to demonstrate the parallel AC and DC magnetic fields would be able to control precisely the function of melatonin, either applied or as produced by the pineal gland, in the controlled and distinctly predicted non-linear form predicted by the IPR model. Further, no person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of these publications would have been motivated to demonstrate the three distinct responses shown under parallel (on or off resonance) and perpendicular AC and DC magnetic fields, indicated by the present application, across a critical range of AC flux densities.
Absent from any of the aforementioned arts is any recognition of:
(a) the variation in critical influence of the strength (flux density) of the AC magnetic field on the magnitude of magnetic field influence on a biological system; PA1 (b) the importance of reducing the static magnetic field perpendicular to the AC magnetic field to near zero value in order to distinctly get the IPR model predicted result; PA1 (c) the role of AC frequency; PA1 (d) the potential for a single exposure condition to differentially stimulate multiple ions concurrently; PA1 (e) evidence of the unique role of a variety of otherwise biologically significant ions, including but not limited to hydrogen, sometimes critical, in a biological system's response to a magnetic field; PA1 (f) the explicit recognition of peak AC field measurements (in contrast to rms) as the appropriate metric. PA1 (g) a clearly prescriptive identification of how the system might differentially respond to variations in B.sub.ac (with B.sub.dc and f.sub.ac constant) except for a postulated effect when B.sub.ac =B.sub.dc (with B.sub.ac interpreted by some experimenters as rms and by others as peak). PA1 (h) indication of the distinction in biological/chemical system response between exposure to parallel and exposure to perpendicular AC and DC magnetic fields, and the critical importance of maintaining strictly parallel fields in order to get the distinct response form predicted by IPR model; PA1 (i) the role of the DC field in selecting an ion or in increasing the off-resonance effect wherein the same AC field could either change f.sub.ac or B.sub.dc to make no effect. PA1 (1) There is a critical influence of the strength (flux density) of the AC magnetic field on the magnitude of magnetic field influence on a system containing an unhydrated ion. PA1 (2) There is the potential for a single exposure to a predetermined magnetic field to differentially stimulate multiple unhydrated ions simultaneously, each of which is predicted to have a unique response form given by the IPR model of the present invention. PA1 (3) It is important to reduce the static magnetic field perpendicular to the AC magnetic field to near zero value in order to distinctly achieve the IPR model predicted result; PA1 (4) The IPR model demonstrates the unique role of a variety of otherwise biologically significant ions. PA1 (5) There is an explicit recognition of peak AC measurements (in contrast forms) as the appropriate measurement; PA1 (6) a clearly prescriptive identification of how the system might differentially respond to variations in B.sub.ac (while B.sub.dc and f.sub.ac remain constant) except for a postulated effect when B.sub.ac =B.sub.dc with B.sub.ac interpreted by some experimenters as rms and by others as peak. PA1 (7) Indication of the distinction in the response of a biological or chemical system between exposure to parallel and exposure to perpendicular AC and DC magnetic fields. PA1 (8) The critical importance of maintaining strictly parallel fields in order to obtain the distinct response form predicted by the IPR model, that is, parallel is on or off, while perpendicular is on. PA1 (9) Hydrogen trigger ion's influence is stronger than any other ions which also may be at resonance, i.e., other ions are weaker than hydrogen. Hydrogen is seen over the influence of fields or other ions within a defined, determinable critical B.sub.ac /B.sub.dc range. That is, there is no need to experiment.
It has also been found that the ion cyclotron resonance condition disclosed by Liboff is a special case of the ion parametric resonance model that is not extendable via harmonics, as Liboff and others have assumed to date.
In the IPR model of application Ser. No. 08/329,980, magnetic field interactions with ions are characterized by a frequency index, n, defined as the ratio of the (ion specific) cyclotron resonance frequency to the applied AC frequency. When n for a given ion has integer value, the system is said to be in resonance for that ion. When n=1, resonance is also found with Liboff's ICR model.
Theoretical models developed to date have been unable to establish a detailed predictive association between low-intensity field exposure and biological results. Some models of electric and magnetic field interactions with biological systems focus on endpoints associated with direct energy deposition into the system from the fields of induction of body currents and suggest that a single variable, such as AC field intensities, is responsible for the observed results. Partially as a result of these implicit models, many experimental responses fail to document all relevant field exposure parameters and do not establish a clear protocol for repeatable results. Inconsistencies between experimental results have subsequently been interpreted by some as evidence that electric or magnetic fields may not be the causal factors (cf. Adair, 1991, 1992).
Most experimental efforts heretofore have failed to document or consider the importance of the relative orientation between the AC and DC fields. In some experiments, different field variables such as frequency, temporal duration of fields, and relative alignment with the local geomagnetic field have been characterized on an ad hoc basis without clear guidance from a theoretical model to indicate which parameters were critical (Adey, 1975, 1988 a, b, 1992; Blackman et al., 1985, 1988, 1990; Blackman, 1992; Liboff, 1985, 1992; Liboff et al., 1987 b; Smith et al., 1987; Thomas et al., 1986).